CLO Magazine just published an article in today’s newsletter about new-hire orientation or on-boarding.

This is more fodder that the process constructed for new-hires is another opportunity for competitive advantage as we move further into our knowledge economy.  Organizations that understand this transition and embrace it are developing employee on-boarding programs that target two critical areas: informational and relational.

The informational element addresses the ‘stuff’ that new hires need to know.  In the information age this cannot be a data dump though – this information needs to be assessed in terms of when someone needs it (i.e. week one, month two, etc.) and how it can be best delivered (i.e. e-learning, podcast, face-to-face, etc) and accessed in the future.

The relational element acknowledges that no matter how good the information is that is provided, people will eventually come to get most of their questions answered through their network of relationships.  Therefore on-boarding programs that incorporate activities and assignments that help new hires meet other people in the organization and form relationships with them have been proven to allow new hires to be productive faster and also to retain them longer.

‘Knowledge Worker’ is certainly a popular buzzword these days but there is merit there.  How these new additions to the workforce acquire, retain and access the information they need is fundamentally different than is was a few decades ago and most orientation programs haven’t yet adapted to that shift.

Organizations that continue to use the precious few first days of someone’s new role to have them fill out paperwork and watch corporate videos are missing a crucial opportunity to prepare their newest team members to help them succeed in their mission…whatever it may be.

Chief Learning Officer [CLO] Media recently printed an online feature titled “Transform Corporate Learning with a User Network.”  In it the authors begin by talking about how different learning styles affect the absorption rate of different learners and then move into some suggestions on how to address these different styles given the constraints of working in any given organization.

Essentially where they land is telling organizations to put the power of learning into the hands of the users and then they will ensure that any learning created will be customized to the learning style of that person.  I agree with them in principle – in practice I would not like to be the one to roll-out this program.

I feel this way because I’ve tried similar approaches with clients and while people agree that they want to learn more just-in-time and informally from their peers they struggle to find the time to add another task item to their already busy day.  To many people, simply saying the word ‘wiki’ will make them cringe.  The thought of having to learn the new technologies of wikis, blogs, rapid elearning, etc. can put the brakes on the momentum of the best intentions.

As we forge forward into our knowledge-based economy it’s my belief that additional resources will need to be deployed [or current ones redeployed] to work alongside people and capture the knowledge artifacts that are produced throughout a routine day.  It is then this person’s job to take these knowledge artifacts and edit/assemble them into a format that is meaningful to the originator as well as any seeker that may come along in the future.

The collective intelligence of an organizational network is a powerful force and thus it is time to start dedicating resources to this force rather than requesting that the people contributing to the knowledge are also the ones that need to manage it.  By dedicating resources to knowledge workers an organization can begin to harness the collaboration and innovation that is occurring in pockets around the organization – making this part of a learning strategy frees up the knowledge workers to work at their day jobs while still addressing their learning needs as the authors rightly suggest.

Communities of practice [CoPs] certainly are a great step in this direction – and they often have a ‘cybrarian’ to manage the knowledge artifacts that are uncovered.  Having the cybrarian, or an equivalent position, be responsible for turning these artifacts into learning modules is a natural extension of this role and one that is well received by the members that don’t have to interupt their normal workflow to do it.

It’s our combined thoughts that bring us great things.

What a great quote, eh?

This came straight from my wife after a couple years of explaining to her what I do for a living.  After all the talk of wikis, social networking, collective intelligence, blogs, knowledge management, Web 2.0, etc. it was her that boiled it down to that statement.

Being so mired in the world of next-generation learning and development I am accustomed to, and comfortable with, the buzzwords of the trade but it’s sometimes difficult to translate the purpose and benefit of all of these funny sounding things to someone that has little insight into this world.

And her statement summed up quite a bit of it.  So much so that when she said it I sat up straight and wrote it down on a bar napkin [a relic of pre-Web 2.0 for any Gen Nexters that may be reading].

The more I thought about it this really encompasses the theory driving this revolution in how people learn, collaborate, innovate, communicate, etc. and the buzzwords are really just the ‘how.’  Communities of practice, social network analysis, rapid elearning, knowledge management and many others are just methods to accomplish the purpose of my wife’s synopsis – harnessing the power of people connected.

As with many other examples, it takes an outsider’s lens to shed a light of clarity on a topic that can become quite complex when left to the experts.

 ”Power Point – What is Appropriate, When and Why?”

Recently my wife participated in a sales presentation to the Executives at a Fortune 500 organization.   They were there selling consulting services to implement a new ERP package.  For this type of sales meeting her organization typically produces slides that are literally packed with information.  I encouraged her to include some other slides that had less information and rather just supported the point she was making.

When she went to her boss (who would be presenting with her) with this idea he iddn’t want to include the more “abstract” slides.  After the presentation concluded, my wife concurred that she didn’t feel the audience would have been receptive to those types of slides.

When looking through the other responses to the LCB’s Big Question I see many that recommend less text, minimal bullets, etc…essentially things that will position your slides as props for your message instead of the message itself.  I certainly agree with that philosophy and it’s the one I use myself when doing presentations.  But it would not have been effective with my wife’s audience.

Orbital RPM just completed a change management project for a Fortune 500 organization.  One of the things that was part of my role in the project was coaching the Project Sponsor for his presentations to the Steering Committee. 

If I had suggested slides with abstract images I would have been jeapordizing the client.  This organization is very formal and their presentation are expected to be to the point and complete with thorough data. 

I think that PowerPoint can be a very powerful tool when used effectively.  But ‘when used effectively’ is a grey area.  Always using pictures, minimal bullet points, etc. will not be appropriate in all presentations.  It depends on your audience and the information you’re trying to convey.  What is your audience expecting?  What are they conditioned to receive?  Are you doing a keynote or a project summary?  A sales presentation or a summary of sales? 

Are you telling a story?  Have slides as cues or points of inflection.  Are you presenting information?  Have the data – it’s comfortable for the audience.

To expand on stories, though, takes us more into the power of PowerPoint from a learning perspective.  Stories hit us at an emotional level and help us connect with and recall the information presented and therefore are a powerful aid in teaching.  PowerPoint is certainly a tool that can enhance stories (although not tell them). 

PowerPoint also seems to be the tool of choice that rapid elearning engines are built around.  It may not be an ideal solution but…

It’s the tool that eveyone knows and the tool that can be used in a mind-boggling number of ways.  PowerPoint or a similar equivalent will not be going away any time soon – learn to use it as a supplement and your stories will come alive.  If you’re presenting data to a Steering Committee you may have to stick with slides that are overflowing with information but if it’s what they want who am I to argue?

What are the trade-offs between quality learning programs and rapid elearning and how do you decide?

Will the quality of my post suffer as a result of the speed at which I’m trying to get it in while it’s still January?  Or will my tight deadline keep me focused, lean and providing just the necessary information?

The same questions can be applied to organizational learning.  Is it worth it for companies to offer training programs that have been piloted, tested, tweaked, etc. or is it better to provide information in a more raw, unrefined mode.  The answer?  What else…it depends.

There are elements of a learning solution that should be well-designed and refined.  These elements should be used for information that isn’t likely to change.  For the ‘informational’ parts of a new-hire orientation, for example, it may be a worthwhile investment of time and money to strive for a module that looks and runs like a well-oiled machine.  It could provide newcomers with a sense of organization and structure in the fragile interaction with their new employer. 

As these newbies progress in their positions, though, they will come to know most of the static information they need to do their jobs.  It’s the complex, constantly changing environment about which they need up-to-date knowledge. 

For knowledge workers it’s nearly impossible to impart all of the information they need to do their jobs.  It’s vast, tacit and always evolving.  A well-oiled ‘quality learning program’ for people that are well entrenched in their role is many times obsolete by the time it is rolled out.  Rapid elearning allows organizations to put information that will change often into a format that lends itself to extremely fast design time.

So to answer the Big Question I’m taking the Consultant’s Amendment (It depends).  You must assess the content to be delivered:  how likely is it to change, can it be used enough times to justify the costs, what effect will the quality of the module have on the audience, etc.

I’ve written this post quickly.  There are many more examples I could have used and my writing could probably be a little better but this is time-sensitive information.  I have to get it posted in January so I’ve chosen to convey the thoughts that come to me as I sit and write.  Could I have made it better ‘quality’ by spending all month on it?  Sure.  Would that have been worth my time?  Probably not. 

I was able to express myself just by sitting down and quickly writing.  Other topics will not lend themselves to that speed – I will have to do some due diligence before publishing.

I recommend using the same criteria for learning solutions.

Books (the good ones) usually provide a deep level of understanding on a given topic.  Beyond that they’re static.  Other than new editions every few years, the information stays exactly the same. 

Magazines are full of the newest ideas and discussions on any variety of topics.  It’s tough to think of a magazine article that has allowed me to gain a deep level of understanding on a complex topic, though.

In a loose comparison, books remind me of formal learning.  They don’t change very often but they’re good at providing a conceptual foundation on which you can build and refine your own opinions and applications of given topics.

In the same loose comparison magazines remind me of informal learning.  They are the perfect complement to a concept that I’ve cemented in my head.  I love to read quick-hit articles that I can layer on top of the foundations I’ve built through other reading.  I can skim through a magazine looking only for the topics that are relevant to my interests at the time.  The topics are new every month so I know I’m getting the most up-to-date insight on that idea (except for blogs of course). 

Books are good for in-depth learning of the fundamentals but they’re static – magazines provide more surface level information that is constantly updated. 

Having a good mix of both is what it takes.  Just like learning in organizations – there is plenty of static information in organizations that is best disseminated in a formal medium.  Offering informal opportunities for participants to deepen their understanding of the concepts is what successful learning organizations are implementing.

Review the knowledge that your workforce needs.  What fits in the category of ‘books’ and what is more suitable for a ‘magazine’?  Once you’ve determined that, think of the best way to deliver it.  Is it through a formal avenue that costs more to design and is not cost-effective to change often (formal learning) or would it be better through a model that is made to change and morph constantly (informal learning)?

Some mediums to consider for each:

• Formal (book) learning: seminars, workshops, elearning modules, simulations
• Informal (magazine) learning: podcasts, nano-learning, rapid elearning, wikis, communities of practice

There is no right answer and no panacea.  Some material lends itself to one model while other material is more appropriate for the other.  Think of the information at hand and wonder – would this be better as a book or as a magazine article?

Are ISD, ADDIE and HPT relevant in a world of rapid elearning, faster time to performance, and informal learning?

In a world where products, targets and strategies adjust constantly the application of these models (ISD, ADDIE, HPT) will be greatly diminished.  As the roles of knowledge workers expand and require them to use information that changes quickly it will be more important for the workforce to have easy access to information rather than them be required to retain it as the result of a well-designed course. 

I use the term ‘greatly diminished’ because I don’t feel the models will become obsolete or completely irrelevant.  The in-depth analysis and often time consuming design and development associated with these approaches can still be leveraged for content that is not likely to change.  For an organization to invest the time, money and resources required for formal training it must be for something that will prove relevant for a long period of time.  For topics that meet this criteria, there will still be relevance for the models of traditional training.

For all other learning required by employees (what Jay Cross and many others consider to be 80%) a new approach to learning is required.  The models used by learning professionals will need to expand to include cultivating communities of practice, managing knowledge, facilitating open-ended dialogue, creating performance support tools and embedding their deliverables seamlessly into the workflow of their workforce.

The models listed in this month’s Big Question were designed for a type of training that was relevant for the needs of an environment different from today’s.  As times have changed our approach as learning professionals must as well so that they provide the learners what they need for success.